Orissa High Court greenlights major road plan in Bhubaneswar, clears eviction: Why squatters couldn’t stall safety project

Court duty-bound

• As it is found that the petitioners are seeking to protect the rank encroachers, the illegal possession cannot be permitted to be continued, that too, under the order of the court, as it is the bounden duty of the court to ensure that such wrongdoers are discouraged at every stage and not permitted to prolong the litigation, the bench noted.

1 road, 2 PILs and opposing claims

The controversy revolved around a 200-foot-wide masterplan road connecting the Institute of Mathematics to Ekamra Kanan via Infocity in Khordha district.

PIL 1: Tribal residents oppose realignment

• Villagers from Chunukoli, claiming to represent Adivasi communities, challenged the project alleging illegal deviation from the original 2018 Comprehensive Development Plan (CDP), threat of eviction and demolition of homes and community structures and violation of protections under the Forest Rights Act.
• They sought quashing of the revised alignment and restraint on eviction without due process.

PIL 2: Citizen seeks completion of road

• A second petitioner took the opposite stance, urging the court to resume stalled construction halted due to litigation, address traffic congestion and accident risks and prevent cost escalation and public inconvenience.
• The court tagged both petitions, recognising the direct conflict between development urgency and displacement concerns.

Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Murahari Sri Raman noted that the writ petition filed by the petitioners suppressed several material facts.

Why road was being realigned

• The state justified the 2023 realignment on technical and safety grounds.
• The original alignment had a dangerous sharp curve, increasing accident risk.
• Engineers recommended a minimum curve radius of 200 metres and design speed of 50 kmph.
• The revised plan ensured better traffic flow, safer navigation and minimal demolition of structures.
• Authorities also argued that the project would largely utilise government land, reducing private and forest land impact.

Public infrastructure over encroachment claims

• Article 19(1)(e) of the Constitution envisages that all citizens shall have the right to reside and settle in any part of the territory of India, the court held.
• Nevertheless, it would not mean to reside and settle in any part of the territory of India without due acknowledgement under law, i.e., unauthorisedly.
• The process of writ cannot be used/abused for stalling developmental activity.
• The writ petition filed by the petitioners is replete with suppression of material facts.
• Many attempts were made to evict the encroachers from the occupation of government land by way of instituting execution proceedings before the civil court.

• Yet the petitioners succeeded in their evil design by filing the writ petition through dubious means, knowing fully well that their applications had been rejected for want of material being placed before the competent authority in terms of requirement under the Forest Dwellers Act.
• Apart from this, certain petitioners are required to be evicted by virtue of decree passed against them.
• Thus, it is a case of definite abuse of the process of court, justice and is a motivated attempt based on falsehood to misguide the court.
• The competent authorities are required to act quickly and ensure that the procedure established in law should not defeat justice to the citizens.
• The larger interest of the public is of paramount consideration, rather than the interest of a few, that too encroachers/squatters.

Can’t use Forest Dwellers Act to hinder development

• The Forest Dwellers Act, 2006, cannot be used as a tool to hinder development and the construction of roads for the safety of the common citizens.
• The Act does not pose restrictions to development in a prohibitive sense, but mandates a specific, legally binding process that must be followed before forest land can be diverted for any project, including road construction.
• This process involves the recognition of forest rights and, crucially, the free, prior, and informed consent of the grama sabha.
• Failure to adhere to these provisions can and often does lead to legal challenges, project delays, and even abandonment, effectively hindering the progress until compliance is achieved.

Court flags larger urban crisis

• The judgment situates the dispute within a broader context, including Bhubaneswar’s rapid urban expansion, rising traffic congestion and accident risks and increasing pressure on public land and infrastructure
• Quoting earlier Supreme Court rulings, the bench observed that road safety is integral to the right to life under Article 21.

Final outcome

• The high court upheld the modified CDP and road alignment.
• Allowed construction to proceed.
• Cleared eviction of encroachments, subject to due process.
• Disposed of both PILs after extensive hearings.

Why this ruling matters

This judgment sets a strong precedent on three fronts:

• Urban Development: Courts are likely to defer to technical and policy decisions in infrastructure projects.
• Encroachment Law: Reinforces a strict stance – no protection for illegal occupation of public land.
• Forest Rights Litigation: Clarifies that claims must meet statutory thresholds, not merely be asserted.

Supreme Court seeks status report on encroachments along Ganga banks

• Earlier this month, the Supreme Court sought a status report on encroachments along the banks of the river and steps taken to remove them.
• Expanding the scope of a petition, which sought action against illegal encroachments in Bihar, a bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and K V Viswanathan asked Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, who appeared for the Centre and National Mission for Ganga Authority, to file a “comprehensive detailed report highlighting…what is the current status insofar as encroachments are concerned in all the States…, from where River Ganga is flowing or passing through?”

• The report should also explain the steps taken so far “for the meaningful implementation and execution of all the clauses of the” October 7, 2016, notification issued by the Ministry of Water Resources, River Development and Ganga Rejuvenation and “which talks about the principles to be followed for rejuvenation, protection and management of River Ganga”, the bench said in the March 12 order.
• The court also sought to know “what are the impediments or hurdles coming in the way of the Authority in giving effect to the better and effective implementation of the notification” and “what steps” it “intends to take to protect the river Ganga passing through all the states… and ensure that the river plains and banks are free of all encroachments?”